From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34585) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iepV1-00072q-Ua for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:05:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iepV0-0001pI-OR for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:05:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:50773) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iepV0-0001oK-BS for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:05:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iepV0-0005HG-5r for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Dec 2019 19:05:02 -0500 Subject: [bug#38459] [PATCH] gnu: (cross-gcc-arguments|gcc-boot0): Enable 128 bit long double for POWER9. Resent-Message-ID: Message-ID: <8736drk9ui.fsf@nckx> References: <9d5aee30-1cfe-434b-f191-3bbd06caa319@free.fr> <87h82its9y.fsf@nckx> <0e9bb696-0165-82c8-799b-58ae72e382cc@free.fr> <07dcfc64-86c2-df79-9bf9-bf87b2568267@free.fr> In-reply-to: <07dcfc64-86c2-df79-9bf9-bf87b2568267@free.fr> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 01:04:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" Reply-to: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice , Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice via Guix-patches via To: dftxbs3e Cc: 38459@debbugs.gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable dftxbs3e, dftxbs3e =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > I could figure it out myself. > > Attached new patches! Thanks! > + ,@(if (equal? "powerpc64le-linux-gnu" boot-triplet) ^^^^^^^^^^^^ This doesn't look right to my tired eyes. BOOT-TRIPLET isn't a string, but a procedure that returns a=20 string. As I see it, this comparison will always be false, on any=20 platform, and the "--with-long-double-128" option will never be=20 used. How did you tests this? The other patch looks correct: perhaps=20 you were somehow testing only its effects? Kind regards, T G-R --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEfo+u0AlEeO9y5k0W2Imw8BjFSTwFAl3wMnIACgkQ2Imw8BjF STzuaw//dJPG2dUvn6GqdYniR+KYCfKLwwTUlAAmIzCLCdXaVQ7clI7xrs+8Nllw DHLNmPo29ci54G8SJHdTrcp9+8a0eemSECZlAFYQCa8uMk1+cJKstv5eP71Ryu4V Cc24BCLwkfs2Msiq1JfnxXKdBRVGLDRSlUjN2+YswXqN4OnYI/qdYDdfsxHQ4ZE/ MXCsLurBJcb3JOtypBNZP8O0HoBASRYfV7L0HGp+AS7hYIpB5MnoWoKG0ozel1wG bG7UsF6Co7zZcSJ3PKOI0eyStjqH+q0wd0sjvxFdllKE5MMAEkXXJ2La6VdQcIuI DzoyztY+Sn3TepWjjkp82EP286TvAWc/FUict87W8gvuGQ9ISjzbt+iiOJiTIIXf 7O8P/F/LCfCHvWv63xSdD0uXcjYsDqBpP2j/7hO9JD2XiHFyRnkvIasJoDjN/OWM Ri6NsFrHO5SpukZmhVdWt3/KgHX3EXPr4epiOG7VCJpH+e7UO6qv9tOk6ZBwuCh6 bhhxpScPnT0OHb5DWfJUjPqGnSuxUVOUQj9Qof7uACl1DA/ipm5Rp11Nmqt93q0b K2oGAnWKcbGYG2HUSk4XEjl9IPo6z/dWPkHYqaj4vPGkTImw7kWxfO+SvjkwB0mA xM8XV51O8PZsEgVYrZK+FEKt1u1BcgFU9AYdE5hZVIVJT+amR3w= =PgV0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--